Ship of Fools: An Argument for Monotheism...

Thread: An Argument for Monotheism... Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020432

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

So, I thought you all might have some fun hacking away at this train of thought:

Premise 1. The universe exists.
Premise 2. It's existence came out of nothing.
Premise 3. It takes God(s) to create a universe out of nothing. (Or show otherwise).

Premise 4. Gods can be existent or non-existent
Premise 5. Gods can be inadequate or adequate or more than adequate to create the universe
Premise 6. Gods can be none, singular, double, several, many or infinite in number.

And any combination of the above. So, for example, if one thought there might be three Gods, those Gods could be all non-existent, or two non-existent and one inadequate, or one non-existent, one inadequate, and one more than adequate to the task of creating the universe, and so on, for all possible permutations. Likewise for any number of Gods. So, when we have generated a list of all possible possibilities...

...we can apply Occam's Razor*:
Rule out all non-existent Gods as irrelevant, since they can't be responsible for creating anything.
Rule out all inadequate Gods as unnecessary, since they can't create the universe.
Rule out all more than adequate Gods as superfluous, since all that is required is adequacy to create the universe.
Rule out multiple adequate Gods as superfluous, since all that is required is one of them to create the universe.

Conclusion: We are left with a singular, existing, adequate God.

Best wishes, 2RM

*Do not multiply entities beyond necessity or Prefer the simplest solution.

[ 10. January 2018, 09:43: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

B

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't follow the logic. There could be a creator God and a bunch of other deities who are worth worshipping (Greek/Roman myths, Terry Pratchett). Creation might not have come from nothing. No creator deity might be needed (for example if everything is created from the wreckage of a previous universe, so there is no "beginning" or "end").

Even if there is a single deity, there maybe no need to worship him, it might make no difference to him, he might be dead, busy elsewhere, asleep, totally unaware of the consequences of the thing he has set in place.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, as per mr cheesy. We don't know if the universe came out of nothing. In fact, we don't know if the Big Bang formed the universe. There are plenty of different cosmological ideas at the moment, e.g. bubble universes. I suppose theists are going to pick one that suits.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Welcome, 2RM.

Your three "rule outs" about adequacy don't seem to have any basis, other than your preference. You don't *know* what is adequate.

I don't know Who or What there may be; but if we allow for one supernatural Deity/deity, I think we should acknowledge the possibility that there *might* be more than one.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Premise 6. Gods can be none, singular, double, several, many or infinite in number.

I think you haven't sufficiently dealt with the question of whether any gods at all are required.

Also you're assuming that the difference between monotheism and polytheism is simply that monotheists believe that there's just one of the same kind of thing that polytheists believe that there's lots of.
But any god that is the kind of thing that polytheists believe in would be inadequate to explain the universe, since they would be part of a universe+ (the universe you're trying to explain plus whatever gods you think explain it). Obviously nothing that is part of universe+ is adequate to explain universe+.
In order to explain the universe adequately something has not to require further explanation itself. If there could be one or more of something it's the kind of thing that requires explanation.

So you don't need to fall back on Occam's Razor to argue for monotheism. Anything that is countable - that there could be more than one of - is not adequate to explain the universe.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, I thought you all might have some fun hacking away at this train of thought:

Premise 1. The universe exists.
Premise 2. It's existence came out of nothing.
Premise 3. It takes God(s) to create a universe out of nothing. (Or show otherwise).

Premise 4. Gods can be existent or non-existent
Premise 5. Gods can be inadequate or adequate or more than adequate to create the universe
Premise 6. Gods can be none, singular, double, several, many or infinite in number.

And any combination of the above. So, for example, if one thought there might be three Gods, those Gods could be all non-existent, or two non-existent and one inadequate, or one non-existent, one inadequate, and one more than adequate to the task of creating the universe, and so on, for all possible permutations. Likewise for any number of Gods. So, when we have generated a list of all possible possibilities...

...we can apply Occam's Razor*:
Rule out all non-existent Gods as irrelevant, since they can't be responsible for creating anything.
Rule out all inadequate Gods as unnecessary, since they can't create the universe.
Rule out all more than adequate Gods as superfluous, since all that is required is adequacy to create the universe.
Rule out multiple adequate Gods as superfluous, since all that is required is one of them to create the universe.

Conclusion: We are left with a singular, existing, adequate God.

Best wishes, 2RM

*Do not multiply entities beyond necessity or Prefer the simplest solution.

Premise 2 is probably false and certainly unfalsifiable at this point. Points four, five and six and also either false or unfalsifiable.

Zzzzz.

K.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Premise 2 is probably false and certainly unfalsifiable at this point. Points four, five and six and also either false or unfalsifiable...
[/QB]

Thanks all, for your replies. Somehow, I just knew logic wasn't going to cut it! But to address myself to directly to Komensky, and indirectly to all of you:

Premise 2: That the universe came out of nothing, seems to me to be true a priori, since any matter, energy, time or space that might be thought to exist before the universe, must also better be considered part of the universe.

I am not sure what your issue with premises 4,5 and 6 might be. For example, take premise 4. Either a God exists, or it doesn't. I do not perceive any other possibilities. Similarly for premises 5 and 6.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

Basically, the OP seems to present a sub-species of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of a 'first cause'. More work would be needed to show that this first cause is akin to the Abrahamic God.

Incidentally, the argument does not depend upon the universe having an origin in time. I believe that many ancient proponents of this argument thought that it actually implied that the universe was eternal. If I have understood correctly, 'causality' in metaphysics is quite different from causality in physics.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

Premise 2: That the universe came out of nothing, seems to me to be true a priori, since any matter, energy, time or space that might be thought to exist before the universe, must also better be considered part of the universe.

You suggest time is part of the universe. Doesn't your argument then imply that it makes sense to say 'before the the universe', i.e. before time existed? Is that possible?

I'm sorry you got so little support for your arguments. I feel bad throwing in another spanner but your reference to Occam's razor needs some more thought. I can't see any reason of infinite god(s) to be parsimonious in their creations. So if you mean that god(s) would have applied the razor to their own creation of the universe, I'd like some reasoning.

On the other hand, if Occam's razor refers to a human desire for simplicity (e.g. there might be millions of gods creating vast unnecessary complexity but we prefer to ignore that and find a simple model) then it only applies to our thinking and not what we are thinking about.

I've seen many worse attempts but reluctantly I'd echo Tortuf's B.

[I typed the bit about time simultaneously to Higgs Bosun ... from my frame of reference at least]

[ 10. January 2018, 13:16: Message edited by: que sais-je ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In order to explain the universe adequately something has not to require further explanation itself. If there could be one or more of something it's the kind of thing that requires explanation.

If one god can exist without explanation, why can't two?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Premise 2: That the universe came out of nothing, seems to me to be true a priori, since any matter, energy, time or space that might be thought to exist before the universe, must also better be considered part of the universe.

Nothing existed before the universe, because there is no such thing as "before the universe" (time itself is a part of the universe).

We don't know what caused the universe to begin. Maybe matter can spontaneously pop into existence. Maybe it was a byproduct of another universe's death. Maybe a god or gods did it. Maybe there is no beginning, and matter/energy just recycles over and over again, but on timescales larger than any human adjective can express.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
You suggest time is part of the universe. Doesn't your argument then imply that it makes sense to say 'before the the universe', i.e. before time existed? Is that possible?

Yes, I noted that as I typed it. I am not sure what the correct preposition is for 'before time'. Maybe ante-time? Whatever, I take your point, with the pinch of salt being that Christianity has long been associated with the idea that God is both everlasting (inside time) and eternal (outside time).

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I'm sorry you got so little support for your arguments.

Don't worry. I'm quite thick skinned. And I put the argument up for people to shoot down. I think my IQ is at least 10 points below the forum average, and I am looking forward to learning from you all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 10. January 2018, 14:03: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Maybe matter can spontaneously pop into existence.

If it can't we need another explanation for Hawking radiation.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's not spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's not spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing.

If virtual particles coming into existence as actual particles or vacuum fluctuation forming a particle-antiparticle pair (the two competing explanations, which both sound like they're the same thing to non-physicists) don't count as "spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing" I'm not sure what would.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

? vacuum isn't nothing. And Hawking radiation is from evaporating black holes.

[ 10. January 2018, 15:02: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

As I recall, in an episode of "X Files", one of the agents referred to "Occam's Rule of Limited Imagination". Real explanations can be more complex than we expect, so Occam's Razor can lead us to over-simplified conclusions.

When I saw the title of the thread, I thought it would be about "why monotheism instead of polytheism", rather than about the origin of the universe or of God. Either way, I think one must start with and agree to a definition of "God" or "god" or "exists".

By the way, why should our universe not have been created by a group of individuals none of whom could have done the job alone?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What made them?

[ 10. January 2018, 15:24: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's not spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing.
If virtual particles coming into existence as actual particles or vacuum fluctuation forming a particle-antiparticle pair (the two competing explanations, which both sound like they're the same thing to non-physicists) don't count as "spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing" I'm not sure what would.

It may sound like "spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing", but it most certainly isn't. As Martin said, vacuum is something - it's an energy field. A field that can produce pairs of particles and corresponding anti-particles from the vacuum field, "borrowing" energy from the Uncertainty Principal to exist for short periods of time. Hawking Radiation is a similar process, though here the virtual particles become real by permanently taking energy (=mass) from the black hole.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I've often reflected that Occum's Razor is being cited in strange ways. Weather is complicated - there are a range of simpler explanations, such as that there are supernatural beings creating the phenomena.

To me, the issue is more that we're naturally inclined to think that complicated explanations are more likely to be true that simple ones.

Of course, in the main scientists are thinking about things in very narrow parameters and are doing experiments and making conclusions based on particular results. In that context, it makes more sense to be looking for the simplest explanation without needing to add a whole lot of other stuff.

But in most other areas of life, the simplest explanation is usually wrong - usually because the simplest explanation ignores, or is unaware of, a whole bunch of other complicating factors.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Welcome, 2RM.

Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Your three "rule outs" about adequacy don't seem to have any basis, other than your preference. You don't *know* what is adequate.

Indeed so. For all I know, having no personal experience in universe creation, omnibenevolence is a required attribute.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't know Who or What there may be; but if we allow for one supernatural Deity/deity, I think we should acknowledge the possibility that there *might* be more than one.

Exactly. My purpose is not to 'prove' there is no pantheon of Gods, just to point out that such a pantheon is unnecessary. Occam does not suggest that simplicity always leads to the correct solution, just that his principle is most likely to lead to the correct solution.

Best wishes, 2RM

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

My schoolboy understanding is that as photons spontaneously become electron-positron pairs, as they do, in the upper boundary of the event horizon of black holes, one of the pair can break free of the surface, whence black hole evaporation.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
My purpose is not to 'prove' there is no pantheon of Gods, just to point out that such a pantheon is unnecessary.

The universe is not what is necessary but what simply what is.

quote:

Occam does not suggest that simplicity always leads to the correct solution, just that his principle is most likely to lead to the correct solution.

Not quite. Fewest assumptions is the basis of his premise, not simplicity.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:

By the way, why should our universe not have been created by a group of individuals none of whom could have done the job alone?

Actually, David Hume suggested this, during his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), where he notes that creation might have been accomplished by a team of Gods, each inadequate to complete the universe creation task individually, but together capable.

Thing is, if you substitute the phrase 'team of Gods' for where I have written 'God(s)' in the OP, you will find the conclusion is very similar. One ends up with the conclusion that a single, existing, adequate team of Gods is all that is required.

Then, you just need to compare that conclusion, a single, existing, adequate team of Gods, with a single, existing, adequate God, and decide for you yourself which is the simplest solution, that would survive Occam's Razor.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 10. January 2018, 16:07: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The only argument that plays to a draw on a good day is Kalam.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I'm curious if anyone is actually impressed by such arguments, or is tempted to convert to theism? I feel incredulous that this is so, but I'm not one to let incredulity mar reality.

I can understand them being used after the fact, but how about before?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Nah, they only ever help once you've made your mind up.

And as for the number of Gods, it's one or infinite. Not 17 or some other arbitrary number.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious if anyone is actually impressed by such arguments, or is tempted to convert to theism? I feel incredulous that this is so, but I'm not one to let incredulity mar reality.

I can understand them being used after the fact, but how about before?

Ha Ha! You just wait 'til I get started on Anselm's ontological argument! If I can't persuade most of humanity that they are sorely wrong, I shall be a just a mite disappointed.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My schoolboy understanding

The school boy needs a better physics teacher.

quote:
photons spontaneously become electron-positron pairs, as they do, in the upper boundary of the event horizon of black holes, one of the pair can break free of the surface, whence black hole evaporation.

The process of photons transforming (non-spontaneously) into electron-positron pairs is an example of pair production, which happens in the vicinity of a heavy charged object (an atomic nucleus).

Hawking Radiation is a very different process, in which particle-antiparticle pairs are created spontaneously from the vacuum field, and in the vicinity of a black hole event horizon one of the particles is pulled into the singularity and the other escapes. This has the appearance of particles streaming away from the event horizon, and the mass of the black hole reducing ... eventually leading to the black hole evaporating.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My schoolboy understanding
The school boy needs a better physics teacher.

quote:
photons spontaneously become electron-positron pairs, as they do, in the upper boundary of the event horizon of black holes, one of the pair can break free of the surface, whence black hole evaporation.
The process of photons transforming (non-spontaneously) into electron-positron pairs is an example of pair production, which happens in the vicinity of a heavy charged object (an atomic nucleus).

Hawking Radiation is a very different process, in which particle-antiparticle pairs are created spontaneously from the vacuum field, and in the vicinity of a black hole event horizon one of the particles is pulled into the singularity and the other escapes. This has the appearance of particles streaming away from the event horizon, and the mass of the black hole reducing ... eventually leading to the black hole evaporating.

Where angels fear to tread: wouldn't that mean that the vicinity would have to be within the black hole? Tangential to the upper bound of the event horizon? For the loss of a particle and its mass from the black hole? I.e. the vacuum field is everywhere including inside black holes?

Point taken that no photon is necessary, but that's how I first heard it explained, as I probably falsely recall.

(And isn't a black hole a heavy, charged object?)

[ 10. January 2018, 16:50: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious if anyone is actually impressed by such arguments, or is tempted to convert to theism? I feel incredulous that this is so, but I'm not one to let incredulity mar reality.

I can understand them being used after the fact, but how about before?
Ha Ha! You just wait 'til I get started on Anselm's ontological argument! If I can't persuade most of humanity that they are sorely wrong, I shall be a just a mite disappointed.

Best wishes, 2RM.

There's a story that Antony Flew converted to deism, supposedly in relation to the beginning of life. (How can mindless matter produce the Kardashians, kind of thing). He was widely accused of senility, by atheists, that is.

Then there's Vladimir Putin, whose conversion was apparently based on Anselm (joking). He is listed as a convert from atheism to Christianity.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious if anyone is actually impressed by such arguments, or is tempted to convert to theism? I feel incredulous that this is so, but I'm not one to let incredulity mar reality.

I can understand them being used after the fact, but how about before?
Ha Ha! You just wait 'til I get started on Anselm's ontological argument! If I can't persuade most of humanity that they are sorely wrong, I shall be a just a mite disappointed.

Best wishes, 2RM.
There's a story that Antony Flew converted to deism, supposedly in relation to the beginning of life. (How can mindless matter produce the Kardashians, kind of thing). He was widely accused of senility, by atheists, that is.

Then there's Vladimir Putin, whose conversion was apparently based on Anselm (joking). He is listed as a convert from atheism to Christianity.

Indeed, but it is my perception that the majority of humanity believes, but believes stuff about God for entirely the wrong reasons.

If I had nothing better to do, then I might be inclined to try to rectify that, as my mission in life. But the truth is, warm English real ale is far more entrancing a prospect.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 10. January 2018, 17:20: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Then, you just need to compare that conclusion, a single, existing, adequate team of Gods, with a single, existing, adequate God, and decide for you yourself which is the simplest solution, that would survive Occam's Razor.

Would not zero gods be even simpler?

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Then, you just need to compare that conclusion, a single, existing, adequate team of Gods, with a single, existing, adequate God, and decide for you yourself which is the simplest solution, that would survive Occam's Razor.
Would not zero gods be even simpler?

Indeed it would. But you need to present some argument as to how zero Gods might account for the universe. See the OP.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There isn't an argument as to how God could account for the universe, is there? I mean, there are arguments suggesting that God did it, or does it, but not how, in the sense of, in which manner.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't an argument as to how God could account for the universe, is there? I mean, there are arguments suggesting that God did it, or does it, but not how, in the sense of, in which manner.

True. But I don't know how the Virgin people wired my flat for TV, telephone, and broadband. They just did, and before them I had no such services, and after them, I did.

Eventually, I guess, barring catastrophe and should the world continue to progress, we will get closer and closer as to understanding the methods that made the world, and us. Meanwhile, our lack of understanding need not predispose us to a bias against faith.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't an argument as to how God could account for the universe, is there? I mean, there are arguments suggesting that God did it, or does it, but not how, in the sense of, in which manner.
True. But I don't know how the Virgin people wired my flat for TV, telephone, and broadband. They just did, and before them I had no such services, and after them, I did.

Eventually, I guess, barring catastrophe and should the world continue to progress, we will get closer and closer as to understanding the methods that made the world, and us. Meanwhile, our lack of understanding need not predispose us to a bias against faith.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, your Virgin example is a bit wonky, isn't it? I can find out how they did it, in fact, I could train to do it.

I often cite gravity, about which much is not known. Maybe it's caused by God pulling down on everything.

Well, I have a bias against the supernatural, because I can't effing find it. Ah well.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Would not zero gods be even simpler?
Indeed it would. But you need to present some argument as to how zero Gods might account for the universe. See the OP.

I'm with quetzalcoatl on this one. Absent an explanation of how God created the Universe, positing God doesn't "account for the universe". It's just a hand wave.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This is like the old argument about explanation. Some theists are prone to saying that God 'explains' the universe, or complexity in nature, or eyes, or morality, or whatever, but that's not correct. It gives you a place-holder, or if you want to be posh, a floating signifier.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye, something that results in zero entropy creates universes. Rationally apprehendable universes.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the idea that the God hypothesis doesn't explain the universe, if there were some alternative on offer that did.

Just as I don't need to know how the Virgin people wired my flat (I go on the hypothesis that they were competent, duly evidenced by this conversation), I don't find I need to know how how God created the universe (I go on the hypothesis that He was adequate, duly evidenced by this conversation).

So, if you don't want to posit, or 'hand-wave' or 'floating signify', to God, given our present state of existential ignorance, what other explanation for being do you, or can you, propose?

Is a sketchy explanation really so much worse than no explanation?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 10. January 2018, 19:00: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Martin's post reminds me of that argument that the total energy of the universe is zero, since the positive of matter is canceled out by the negative of gravity. They say that Einstein stopped in the middle of the street, when he heard this, and nearly got run over. I don't know whether it leads to the argument that creating zero from zero isn't so hard!

[ 10. January 2018, 19:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the idea that the God hypothesis doesn't explain the universe, if there were some alternative on offer that did.

Just as I don't need to know how the Virgin people wired my flat (I go on the hypothesis that they were competent, duly evidenced by this conversation), I don't find I need to know how how God created the universe (I go on the hypothesis that He was adequate, duly evidenced by this conversation).

So, if you don't want to posit, or 'hand-wave' or 'floating signify', to God, given our present state of existential ignorance, what other explanation for being do you, or can you, propose?

Is a sketchy explanation really so much worse than no explanation?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I don't think it's as rational as that, is it? I think a lot of religious stuff is about loneliness and love, but maybe that's just me.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the idea that the God hypothesis doesn't explain the universe, if there were some alternative on offer that did.

Just as I don't need to know how the Virgin people wired my flat (I go on the hypothesis that they were competent, duly evidenced by this conversation), I don't find I need to know how how God created the universe (I go on the hypothesis that He was adequate, duly evidenced by this conversation).

You're ignoring the obvious alternative explanation that the Virgin people created the Universe. It actually seems more likely than the idea that God did it, since the Virgin people have at least proved themselves competent at wiring flats, whereas God has not demonstrated that he has even that much ability. Given that it's the simpler explanation (you've directly observed the Virgin people but not God, the Virgin people can perform various IT task whereas whether God can do so is an open question, etc.) it would seem to be the preferred "explanation".

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

I love this forum!

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I love this forum!

Best wishes, 2RM.

No explanation is necessary. With the possible exception, a la William Lane Craig's Kalam, for that creation is rational, coherent. Not seething instantaneously everywhere with everything.

Universes may come in to being in null, not even a universe maker in which there is no net entropy, because. Because there's null there can be not null.

But why are they so restrained?

[ 10. January 2018, 20:10: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Martin's post reminds me of that argument that the total energy of the universe is zero

Yes, there is a good argument to that effect. Which makes creating the universe somewhat trivial, making nothing is easy.

Except, of course, the universe is a very special arrangement of nothing. It's that ordering of nothing into galaxies, stars, planets and life that is the clever bit.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Da DAH!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Is it not that the total momentum of the universe is zero? And so on up? If there is an up. An uncaused, infinite, eternal scalar energy field which is the womb conceiving quantum perturbations that become universes? If there's no up then universes arise from null. Because there is null. Bit... desperate that isn't it? So there's an uncaused field. Phew! Thank...

I can imagine that its content cancels itself out, even to the degree that the total energy is zero, but it's still there. Vexing isn't it? Or is the average that it is not? That it's still nothing? On average? The average is it's NOT there. So that's all right? Nothing has to be explained? The conservation laws are maintained. Laws?

It's still there. And it creates not only anthropically all but impossibly fine tuned universes - only possible because every possibility has already happened infinitely in eternal infinity - but in the first place it creates them coherently. Which is again an even higher level of improbable existence. Why doesn't anything and everything constantly come in to existence everywhere? By what LAW? The infinite, eternal scalar field ground of being only does quantum perturbations. May be it - any/every thing - DOES. May be bowls of petunias do come in to existence. Why NOT? But not for, in our universe. By chance. By the certainty of even that possibility given infinity.

Makes belief in - uncaused, rational - God perfectly reasonable doesn't it. That's not a question.

[ 11. January 2018, 08:35: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I love this forum!

Best wishes, 2RM.
No explanation is necessary. With the possible exception, a la William Lane Craig's Kalam, for that creation is rational, coherent. Not seething instantaneously everywhere with everything.

I agree with you about rational and coherent. But consider also that the fact that a thing may not seem (to you) to stand in need of an explanation (like Paley's stone on the heath), does not necessarily mean it doesn't have one.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Meanwhile, our lack of understanding need not predispose us to a bias against faith.

Neither should it predispose us to a bias in favour of faith. "Science doesn't (currently) know how this happened, so God must have done it" is nothing more than God Of The Gaps.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I love this forum!

Best wishes, 2RM.
No explanation is necessary. With the possible exception, a la William Lane Craig's Kalam, for that creation is rational, coherent. Not seething instantaneously everywhere with everything.
I agree with you about rational and coherent. But consider also that the fact that a thing may not seem (to you) to stand in need of an explanation (like Paley's stone on the heath), does not necessarily mean it doesn't have one.

Best wishes, 2RM.

If no explanation is necessary, but there is one, it's not one we can apprehend.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Bugger. ...but IF there...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Bugger. ...but IF there...

Unbugger. Stet. As you were.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

If no explanation is necessary, but there is one, it's not one we can apprehend.

Don't give up too easily! If the universe is rational and coherent, an hypothesis all of scientific enterprise is based on, and has yet to let us down, that would suggest its creator is also rational and coherent. That's not to say there won't be the odd paradox and impossibility to resolve, but challenges are what make us grow.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 11. January 2018, 14:44: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
If the universe is rational and coherent, an hypothesis all of scientific enterprise is based on, and has yet to let us down, that would suggest its creator is also rational and coherent.

Or, alternatively, that any universe (regardless of whether there is a creator) that can be described by a rational and coherent scientific enterprise has to be rational and coherent. Or, rational and coherent scientific enterprise can only develop in a rational and coherent universe. Which is all very circular, and says nothing except both science and nature are rational and coherent.

An argument could be made that the rationality and coherence of the universe would argue against the existence of gods with the character of the Greek pantheon, throwing thunder-bolts around in a fit of pique. Or, equally a God who gets a hissy fit and destroys all he's made with a flood, decides to help his pals win a battle by extending the length of the day, or shows off to his mates by taking a stroll across the surface of a lake.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
nothing more than God Of The Gaps.

'God of the Gaps'
'Mind the Gap'
[Paranoid]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Craig's point is that a non-rational creator would make only non-rational creation.

Which feels right.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

What seems obvious to me, after reading all of and comprehending only bits of the foregoing, is that universes create one or more gods, not the reverse.

Humans form part of the flotsam and jetsam which comprise the universe, and one of the things that happens in human groups over time is the development of goddidit explanations for the intimidatingly vast array of Stuff We Do Not Understand.

We also develop notions about Black Holes, gravity, natural selection, virus mutation, probability, etc. etc., occasionally in advance of measurable evidence that these do, however incredibly, exist.

I can only conclude that the universe creates god(s), and am inclined to wonder if we are in fact making this particular universe up as we go along.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I can only conclude that the universe creates god(s), and am inclined to wonder if we are in fact making this particular universe up as we go along.

Whether we create our universe, or discover it, is actually quite a profound question, despite the common sense view. My own suspicion is that our subjective perceptions limit the extent of the objective discoveries we can make.

But, I'm going to be busy for the next few days, and may not be able to respond further to this thread for a time. Whatever, it has been a most engaging discussion, and I look forward to debating other matters with you all in due course.

Best wishes, to everyone, 2RM.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
My own suspicion is that our subjective perceptions limit the extent of the objective discoveries we can make.

Nonsense. We are not limited to our perceptions, but to our imaginations.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
My own suspicion is that our subjective perceptions limit the extent of the objective discoveries we can make.

Nonsense. We are not limited to our perceptions, but to our imaginations.

Except our imaginations are informed by our perceptions.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

We're limited by physics and psychology.

Perfect lilBuddha.

[ 11. January 2018, 18:33: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
My own suspicion is that our subjective perceptions limit the extent of the objective discoveries we can make.

Nonsense. We are not limited to our perceptions, but to our imaginations.

Hmmm. If I perceive there to be no God, that might limit my objective discoveries in Theology, wouldn't you say?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In order to explain the universe adequately something has not to require further explanation itself. If there could be one or more of something it's the kind of thing that requires explanation.
If one god can exist without explanation, why can't two?

One way of looking at it is to say that if there are two gods not requiring explanation then there must be some logical relationship between them. And if there's a logical relationship between them it's difficult to see why you'd say there are two separate entities there. (See the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.)

Another way of looking at it is to say that if there's one god rather than two or three, that does need explanation.
However, there are situations where the word 'one' is used where there isn't an option of two or three. For example, two multiverses just add together to give a bigger more complicated multiverse. In that case, if you say that there's only one multiverse, the word 'one' is being used merely to rule out the applicability of there being two or more. You can't count the multiverse and decide that there's only one. The whole concept of number isn't really applicable, but since linguistically number words keep creeping in, the word 'one' is more appropriate than any other number word.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
My own suspicion is that our subjective perceptions limit the extent of the objective discoveries we can make.

Nonsense. We are not limited to our perceptions, but to our imaginations.
Hmmm. If I perceive there to be no God, that might limit my objective discoveries in Theology, wouldn't you say?

Best wishes, 2RM.

There doesn't need to be a God to do that.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

I suspect there's some daylight to be found between "informed by" and "limited to." I have never perceived an actual living, breathing unicorn. Personally, I don't believe such creatures exist, or have ever existed (though I have, of course, seen images of these as conceived by an assortment of visual artists).

I do have the ability, based on perceptions of other creatures, to develop a mental construct of a unicorn. I can imagine it to be 4-legged, rather horselike in head and body, possessing a mane, and sprouting the all-important single horn out of the middle of its forehead.

Further, I can embellish the (Western)culturally-established unicorn-construct (the white, maned, horned, horselike creature) with further details. I can imagine it having fangs, or clawed, three-toed feet rather than paws or hooves. I can suppose it answers solely to female virgins' voices because female virgins are all it dines upon (no doubt contributing substantially to their famous rarity).

None of this will produce a unicorn I can take tissue samples from or weigh or measure or examine in any way. What it does have the power to do, though -- depending on my skill/influence/charisma in promoting this construct -- is to persuade a sufficient number of other imaginative humans to begin behaving as though this construct might be or likely is objectively (whatever that means) real, and encourage all sorts of activities designed to:

* locate evidence for its past or present existence or at least activity;

* re-consider our current taxonomy of the animal kingdom to create the necessary plausible "space" within this system for including it once evidence is found of its existence;

* mount much-needed campaigns for the protection of nubile-but-not-yet-sexually active human females to prevent their decimation by this hungry, elusive beast . . .

. . . and so on.

Which leads us to a rather different question: What's the difference (from a human perspective) between a universe actually created by a god and one in which hundreds of millions of human beings act as though they live in a universe created by a god?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Hmmm. If I perceive there to be no God, that might limit my objective discoveries in Theology, wouldn't you say?

Just out of curiosity, how does one make "objective discoveries" in theology? God is notoriously averse to direct observation, except in the rarest of circumstances.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ohher. None. For now.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Croesos--

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Hmmm. If I perceive there to be no God, that might limit my objective discoveries in Theology, wouldn't you say?
Just out of curiosity, how does one make "objective discoveries" in theology? God is notoriously averse to direct observation, except in the rarest of circumstances.

Thank you for this! I get rather irritated with the idea that academic theologians necessarily know more about God than anyone else. They might well know more about biblical languages and culture; about dying and resurrecting god motifs in other faiths and myths; and what the name of the shepherd's lost sheep was.

But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether God is, what God is like, having a relationship with God, or trying to live the way God wants.

Every human being has the birthright of thinking (or not!) about God, deities, how to live, and whether any of that matters. (And...who knows? Maybe every living being has that birthright, too. See the books "Creatures Choir" and "Prayers From The Ark", by Carmen Bernos de Gaztold.)

Personally, my favorite theologian is Terry Pratchett. His Disc World novels show that he got just about *everything*, agnostic though he was.
[Overused]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Hmmm. If I perceive there to be no God, that might limit my objective discoveries in Theology, wouldn't you say?
Just out of curiosity, how does one make "objective discoveries" in theology? God is notoriously averse to direct observation, except in the rarest of circumstances.

It's nowt ter do wi' God. Theology. It's to do with critical thinking. As in mathematics, logic itself, objective discoveries can therefore be made.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We're limited by physics and psychology.

We are, if that is what we believe in.

Maybe something never did get created out of nothing.
It could be that we are the nothing.
God has provided this illusion for us to do with it what we will.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We're limited by physics and psychology.
We are, if that is what we believe in.

Maybe something never did get created out of nothing.
It could be that we are the nothing.
God has provided this illusion for us to do with it what we will.

If we don't believe in physics and psychology then we're even more limited. But not in kindness. I'm found wanting in all of them.

As for creatio ex nihilo, like nearly all theistic concepts it's meaningless. God ain't nuthin'.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
As for creatio ex nihilo, like nearly all theistic concepts it's meaningless. God ain't nuthin'.

... And God Laughed.
Had a chuckle myself too [Smile]

If God thought Her/Himself meaningless then I guess we'd be be in trouble from immediate effect, as in *phut*. No more, never was, never will be.

For me it is the meaningless of an infinite Cosmos, made up of fusion balls and cratered spheres sparsely populated with a variety of Carbon forms which gives God meaning, even if (S)He does turn out to be Steve H's single Atom.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0